Traditional methods for analysis of failures in a system, Failure Mode Effect Analysis (FMEA) and Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), have three main differences: boundaries of the analysis, direction of analysis, and presentation of the analysis process and results. FMEA deals with single point failures, is built bottom-up, and is presented mostly in the form of tables, while FTA analyzes combinations of failures, is built top-down, and is visually presented as a logic diagram. The finalized FMEA table and to big extent the process of FMEA itself are expected to cover ALL End Effects (EE). While dealing with all possible EE, as potential outcome of analyzed Failure Mode (FM), FMEA lacks the capability to sort/prioritize them—EE are presented as couple—EE attached to the FM under investigation, randomly distributed at different points of the table in a “heap”. In contrary, the FTA considers one specific EE at all—covering all combinations of Failure Modes (FM) causing this EE only. Here, by taking into account combinations of failures, FTA avoids the shortcomings of FMEA. However, being heavily dependent on personal experience and knowledge, even “fine art” of a performer-analyst, FTA has a tendency to miss some of (FM) or FM combinations.
Most failure analysis and studies are based on one of these approaches (FMEA or FTA). Rarely both FMEA and FTA will be performed, and when performed, these will be separate activities executed one after another—never seriously intertwining.
The present invention presents a system, methodology and procedure as a tool capable to maximize the advantages and at the same time to minimize the shortcomings of both separate methodologies. The result is a dramatic improvement in the organizing and systematization of the analyst's work, leading to the full coverage of all potentially significant failure conditions and combinations.